Puranic and/or non-tantric Shaivism/Skaktism today?

[Vinayaka]

I'm kind of easy, it's a movement which has emerged within the Hindu framework even if you don't wanna call yourself Hindu no more.

Like several others. Off on on. I like to leave it up to the adherents/followers themselves to define, not outsiders like you and me. I have discussed with BKs before at booths at 'spiritual' bazaars. Certainly not non-tantrik Saivism as the OP was looking for.

 

[Bhadr]

I am sorry about that , but the discussion took its own course.
Aupji is asking for hard evidence , can I continue on this thread or do I open a new one.?
( Not a very hard thing to decide , I hope though )

This is a DIR.Every person has freedom to express their opinions in the appropriate place.Please remember that the forum has some rules.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vinayaka, Kirran, do you consider yourself Hindu? Vinayaka, you identify yourself as Shaiva (Siddhanti) and Kirran, you as Sadhaka. Will be interesting to know. As you know, one way or the other, it does not matter in our relations.

 

[Kirran]

That's my tag line, I've left the religion field empty. I'm Hindu, it's what I'd tick on a form, but I hold the label very lightly and am rather unidentified with it by this point. I hope I do not misrepresent him, but I think @Vinayaka is Shaiva Siddhantin first, Hindu second. His organisation, the SSC, is quite emphatic about its placement within Hinduism.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm a Hindu first, Saivite second, and Saiva Siddhantin third. Just like I'm a Canadian first, Albertan second, and Edmontonian last. I am strongly identified with Hindu, and in the world where not everyone understands the sectarian stuff, the term 'Hindu' works incredibly well at the moment.

Aup, I believe is Hindu first, atheist second.

For the purposes of the DIR, one had to be exclusively Hindu i think, not just saying you're Hindu at the moment, as some of the universalists or syncretics. There is a place or two here on RF for everyone.

 

[Kirran]

I'm a Hindu first, Saivite second, and Saiva Siddhantin third. Just like I'm a Canadian first, Albertan second, and Edmontonian last. I am strongly identified with Hindu, and in the world where not everyone understands the sectarian stuff, the term 'Hindu' works incredibly well at the moment.

Aup, I believe is Hindu first, atheist second.

For the purposes of the DIR, one had to be exclusively Hindu i think, not just saying you're Hindu at the moment, as some of the universalists or syncretics. There is a place or two here on RF for everyone.

Forgive me! I had misconstrued.

R.e. being exclusively Hindu - there's certainly no other label I'd think to identify with, so I'm on board on that front. Even though I'm a universalist. But universalism is a Hindu tradition that has long been in good standing.

 

[Vinayaka]

Forgive me! I had misconstrued.

R.e. being exclusively Hindu - there's certainly no other label I'd think to identify with, so I'm on board on that front. Even though I'm a universalist. But universalism is a Hindu tradition that has long been in good standing.

Yes, Hindu universalism is right in there. Hinduism, in view of its tolerance, is suited to universalist schools. But still there is a line there somewhere where it crosses over into non-Hindu. That part isn't always clear.

Most of us are quite tolerant of other faiths, it's just when incorporation of those faith's beliefs into ours is when it gets muddled.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, Hindu universalism is right in there. Hinduism, in view of its tolerance, is suited to universalist schools. But still there is a line there somewhere where it crosses over into non-Hindu. That part isn't always clear.

Most of us are quite tolerant of other faiths, it's just when incorporation of those faith's beliefs into ours is when it gets muddled.

I have no idea where that line is. Did Ramakrishna cross it? If not, I'm cool with the gang.

 

[Bhadr]

Did Ramakrishna cross it?

I just know that he was a great devotee of Sri Kali.(I think he is a Shakta - its my personal opinion)
The Kathamrita is online.If possible you read it completely(if you haven't already) and tell us Kirran Ji.
http://www.kathamrita.org/kathamrita

 

[Kirran]

I just know that he was a great devotee of Sri Kali.(I think he is a Shakta - its my personal opinion)
The Kathamrita is online.If possible you read it completely(if you haven't already) and tell us Kirran Ji.
http://www.kathamrita.org/kathamrita

More of a subjective opinion than something you can figure out from reading things.

He had his experiences with Jesus and Muhammad, and was certainly teaching that the deeper and genuine teachings of the major religions were pointing to the same truth.

 

[Bhadr]

More of a subjective opinion than something you can figure out from reading things.

Yes,subjective opinion.
(Its big but give it a try.)

the deeper and genuine teachings of the major religions were pointing to the same truth.

Subjective opinion!

 

[Jainarayan]

I have no idea where that line is. Did Ramakrishna cross it? If not, I'm cool with the gang.

I think Ramakrishna "experimented" with following other faiths. Sort of like tasting different things at a buffet. I can relate to his experimenting. I did it too as several people here know. In the end I came back to Hinduism, and feel a stronger bond with it. Afaik underneath it all he was Hindu. In my understanding of universalism, I'm not sure that all religions have the same goals, but those ways, paths, goals are just as valid for those believers as Hinduism is for Hindus. Judaism works for Jews, Buddhism works for Buddhists, Islam for Muslims, Paganism for Pagans, and so on. That's my understanding.

 

[Kirran]

I think Ramakrishna "experimented" with following other faiths. Sort of like tasting different things at a buffet. I can relate to his experimenting. I did it too as several people here know. In the end I came back to Hinduism, and feel a stronger bond with it. Afaik underneath it all he was Hindu. In my understanding of universalism, I'm not sure that all religions have the same goals, but those ways, paths, goals are just as valid for those believers as Hinduism is for Hindus. Judaism works for Jews, Buddhism works for Buddhists, Islam for Muslims, Paganism for Pagans, and so on. That's my understanding.

While I relate to the general message, in the case of Ramakrishna he was already realised, had already experienced the nondual nature of existence, when he looked into Islam and Christianity. So he was more like 'Yup, same same' and carrying on with what he was doing. As a realised guru, I don't think he was Hindu underneath anything, as he wouldn't have been identified in such labels. During his experience of oneness with Christ, he felt all the ideas and approaches of Hinduism disappearing from him and being driven out, replaced with reverence for Christ and so forth. Then he came back out and was done and they were both there again.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have no idea where that line is. Did Ramakrishna cross it? If not, I'm cool with the gang.

I personally don't think Ramakrishna crossed it. Later quoters of him did though. What people forget is that he was already self-realised in samadhi when he explored other faiths. He didn't start from scratch. Its the difference between me visiting you from here, or me visiting you when I'm going through London. it's simply much easier to visit you if I am already in London. So it's much easier to draw some conclusions when you're already there. Whether or not non-Hindu faiths can get you there is another story altogether, and Ramakrishna is no proof of it. You can't undo self-realisation and start over.

Of course many of us know the story of how the Ramakrishna Mission declared itself non-Hindu as a political move to point out the biases from the Indian government in giving grants to minority faiths.

 

[Kirran]

I personally don't think Ramakrishna crossed it. Later quoters of him did though. What people forget is that he was already self-realised in samadhi when he explored other faiths. He didn't start from scratch. Its the difference between me visiting you from here, or me visiting you when I'm going through London. it's simply much easier to visit you if I am already in London. So it's much easier to draw some conclusions when you're already there. Whether or not non-Hindu faiths can get you there is another story altogether, and Ramakrishna is no proof of it. You can't undo self-realisation and start over.

Of course many of us know the story of how the Ramakrishna Mission declared itself non-Hindu as a political move to point out the biases from the Indian government in giving grants to minority faiths.

Ah, yup! I think what he did do as a result of those experiences, as his disciples did, was to point out that he'd confirmed that Christ was just as much an aspect of God as Rama, Kali and so on. Just as much an aspect of the one Divine.

His disciple Guru Sri Subramanium wasn't so impressed with religions as piles of dogma and doctrine and so forth. Religion in that sense I also see as often rather counterproductive. Genuine spirituality, not so concerned with the barriers of labels, is rather freer and more detached. But if you're basically settled within yourself in one way of doing things and don't feel the need to look for other stuff anyway then that's great, everyone finds that place. I personally don't feel a draw into Christian traditions, but one very good friend of mine who's primarily a Hanuman bhakta has pictures of Christ on his shrine.

Yogaswami used to teach people of different traditions from their respective scriptures, although I recognise that one can see this as not being universalist, but more helping people of other faiths getting the best out of their tradition kind of thing.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes people find what works for them. If not, they keep searching. Things evolve too, in the inter-religious realms. Experiences can change the way a person feels about things, both positively and negatively. The Indianisation of ISKCON, in America, is an example. Some people like it, some people don't.

 

[Kirran]

Yes people find what works for them. If not, they keep searching. Things evolve too, in the inter-religious realms. Experiences can change the way a person feels about things, both positively and negatively. The Indianisation of ISKCON, in America, is an example. Some people like it, some people don't.

Yeah, true, things are always in flux.

ISKCON's kind of gone back and fore on that one

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah, true, things are always in flux.

ISKCON's kind of gone back and fore on that one

Yes, and back and forth on whether or not they're Hindu too. Since I believe in letting the individual organisations define themselves, most are easy. BKs, ISHA foundation etc. are decidedly non-Hindu by their own admission. ISKCON is tougher that way, because it seems kind of undecided, or depends on who you ask. Not that it all matters anyway, as you alluded to earlier.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, and back and forth on whether or not they're Hindu too. Since I believe in letting the individual organisations define themselves, most are easy. BKs, ISHA foundation etc. are decidedly non-Hindu by their own admission. ISKCON is tougher that way, because it seems kind of undecided, or depends on who you ask. Not that it all matters anyway, as you alluded to earlier.

They're kind of like, we're spreading Hindu culture but the truth of our message transcends religion? That kind of thing, I think. To be honest, I don't know what Ramakrishna Mission people call themselves, maybe it varies. They're more focused on sadhana than identities, I'd think. They don't operate the same way as the SSC, which has involved itself in the community from a different place and in a different way (it's supporting a minority religion in a country where discrete truth-claim-centred religions are the norm).

 

[Bhadr]

Spoiler